>I've recently had occasion to figure out a weird problem with the way
>shared libraries are selected for use under -current.  An application
>(AOLserver) started dumping core after I updated to a new -current a
>couple of weeks ago, and after a bit of digging I suddenly noticed
>that the core dumps indicated it was loaded with an old libc.so.  The
>full name of the library gave me pause: "libc.so.12.62.1".  Three
>numbers after the ".so."?

have you tried rebuilding it?

>Was the "12.62.1" version number just a temporary glitch that will
>never occur again, though, or is there a problem that I ought to file
>a proper bug report for?  What will happen when we get to "12.100"?

12.62.1 is, afaict, the major.minor.teeny of libc on the 1.5 branch.
when a branch is cut, the major and minor are rather fixed, so
bugfixes to the library are reflected by the use of the teeny number.

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."